 |
| |
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Xin Yu,
The model that harli, is batting around with myself includes consideration of scouting and effective deployment. If a unit is completely outscouted it could indeed be ambushed. The effects of this ambush effectively halve the ambushies firepower and remove any support from artillery and airpower etc, until the units deploy. The chances of an ambush completely working decrease as the size of the forces increases. (More accurately, the less units you have involved the better the chance of an ambush on the opposition.) The scale we are working on would have the minimum unit at a strength of ~1500-2000 men, more ususally it would be around 5000.
We are looking at having several phases to the combat with scouting and maneuver happening before the main battle phase. We do envisage some skirmaishing between forces during the maneuver phases, mainly by light and independent troops. The battle scale itself does not lend itself to skirmishing unless both sides have low aggression values.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Mark,
As to rail movement, I would throw my support towards a pool structure. You could even increase rail capacity within your Civ by purchasing loco's and you get a increase in the pool for each loco. Obviously the economic effects of military use of railways can be a serious problem. (When the huge german Siege gun from WW2 was being moved around it efectively disrupted traffic over great sections of germany. It needed to use two lines simultaneously so two way traffic was impossible.) Maybe the military gets to use excess rail capacity for free bu after that there is a direct drop in production with further rail movement. Unused capacity could create some additional income effects.
You could increase rail capacity within your Civ by purchasing loco's and you get a increase in the pool for each loco. (The increase could be dependent on the current rail tech) It should even be possible to simulate trainbusting with aircraft by allowing the rail pool to be targetted and decreasing the pool.
A further benefit of the pool concept is that if large areas are conquered quickly you will gain the rail net but not much of an improvement in the actual transport pool.
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 09, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xin Yu
|
 |
Emeryville, CA, USA
Jan 1970
time: 21:13
|
|
Thanks for the quick response. Ambush in my classification includes certain kinds of 'secret weapons' which are unexpected by the enemy. For example, using natural resources such as fire to attack is typical in many legendary tales. Here's one: Yue-Fei, the most famous general in Sung Dynasty of China, commanded 800 soldiers to defeat 100,000 Northern intruders (yes, 5 zeros). What he did in the legend was he attacked the enemy's base all by himself and killed several before fled to the mountains (where his men set up ambushes), then used fire, water, and boulders subsequently to kill a majority of persueing enemy soldiers. This legend may not be true, but think about those secret weapons -- scouts may not find them, and large army has no advantage at all against fire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xin Yu,
That's more like guerrilla activity than military action. I suppose there will be something of that sort in the game, but it shouldn't be a major factor in the mil model. All the things you've mentioned are tactical, rather than strategic (or "operational") scale. We are looking at battle occuring in 3-day "ticks" of the metaphorical clock, too long for us to micromanage action plans. We're using 100 km tiles, or point locations specified to the nearest km, too large a scale to include information about the terrain that would influence such decisions and outcomes.
We do need separate rules or procedures for seiges and field battles. Separating field battles further into skirmishes and "duels" or full fledged battles could be included.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LOGO
|
|
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Aug 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Xin Yu's idea is interesting, ever once and a while a great comander will use extemely unconventional warfare to achive victory. Think of the Trojan Horse. I don't understand at all how we could factor that in though, maybe through the use of our charactor system, maybe add resourcefulness (spelling?) to their name? I don't know but I do see Xin Yu's logic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
marc_anton
|
|
Hi folks,
I have a question.
How is upgrading of units handled?
I think of youst paying for new equipment, not for men also because recruiting should be represented in support-costs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Marc_Anton,
(shakespearian?)
It all depends on whether there will be a unit workshop or not. If we allow for the creation of our own units then we can indeed just pay for the improved item. (Eg. Replace bolt action magazine rifles with semi autos.)
If we instead go with a preestablished unit path, then we will need a indicated upgrade path to allow for unit upgrades. (EG. ML rifleman will upgrade to BL rifleman for 10 Clash monetary units.)
At worst it should be possible to purchase a new unit at the expense of a old unit and gain the old units experience ratings etc, for the new unit.
I am hoping for the first case to be the one used.
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 10, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlikwin
|
|
Here It Is!!
This is the first part of the combat resolution model that Kerenske and I have been working on. I will post the other parts as they are completed. Along with a unit data post. If this is unclear Kernske will be posting the converastions we had in order to get to this model up on his website...
(K, can you post a link to that??)
General Intro:
This model describes what happens when one TF hits another TF on the main map.
One of the things that is done is that the square that battle is taking place in is divided into 9 different terrain types (3X3) these are determined by the general type of terrain the main map hex is. Ex: River, we would have like 3 river, 2 woods, 4 plains for our 9 types of terrain. The tile where the battle is actually fought is determined randomly, though it can be shifted through scouting. The battle then commences with the scout phase, which is followed by the maneuver (deployment phase) and concludes with the assault phase. Retreat can be ordered in either the maneuver or the assault phase if the AI decides it is prudent to do so.
Scout Phase:
Element Scout Strength = (Exp + Tech feature + Comm tech) x ((Mob - fortification benefit - terrain mod) + hits)
Total Scout strength = ( Number of elements + Sum of element scout strengths)^(1/2)
Or
Total Scout strength = ( Number of elements + Sum of element scout strengths) / ( # of elements X (CF))
The CF would vary for the number of elements like 1 for (1-5 elements) or 2 (for 6-10) elements or something point is diminishing returns on number of scouts… (There is probably a better math way to do this, but math was never my strong point)
Total scout Strength X Generalship X conversion factor = % chance of going to the maneuver phase
Check how well the test was made:
10% major advantage
50% Advantage
Advantages (randomly picked)
- Terrain shifting - the scout phase allows the TF to skew the terrain to their liking.
- Deception - the scouts managed to deceive the opposition. If the opposition passed their scout test without advantage then the deception negates the test and are treated as having failed the test.
- Negation - the advantage removes the opposition's advantage or reduces a major advantage to a normal one.
- Ambush - the scouts managed to smack the enemy scouts around a bit, scouts get a free medium and long range combat round vs. the opposition scouts. (Modify this)
-Other stuff??
Major Advantage (again randomness)
-Rapid deployment, or something of the like
-Pick 2 normal advantages
-Other stuff??
Go To maneuver phase
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LOGO
|
|
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Aug 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Hey Harli,
Some things about scouting system.
Pre-scouting
I think there should be a bonus to scouting when you know the terrain. Maybe you could dispatch specific cartographers to take detailed records of the hexes to make combat bonuses. This could tie in with other combat systems (for example a improvement for a city might be a bunch of heavy cannons, if you had a detailed map of lands the cannons would be much more accurate, movement increase depending on the terrain (especially in mountainous terrain), and an obvious increase in trade over ocean squares. There should be different levels of mapping. Eventually it should tie in with bombing accuracy and there should be plenty of space based mapping system (like the one on the space shuttle right now). Maybe it could be a sub-menu on a sort of military menu to make things easier, for example you could finance so much money for a new map of different regions and when new techs come of age then you will have new options.
Non-land reconnaissance
It seemed to me you think of scouts as purely land-based guys on horses. What about air reconnaissance or space based reconnaissance? What about radar?
Spies
I think there should be some kind of combat advantage in having a very good infiltration of a nation for reconnaissance. Anything on that?
In territory
I think there should be a boost if the army is operating in their own nation, and a BIG boost if operating within their own city limits (sorry I don't know if I'm up to date with the specifics of the system of provinces so I'll just say my ideas in old Civ. II context, sorry).
Now about your advantages system, I really, really, really don't want randomness to give an someone a 50% advantage, maybe if it happens once every thousand years in certain battles, but 50%!!?? That's alot to give to the dice! I think we might want to make the model a little bit more complex and cut down on the randomness level, we are trying to find realistic battle outcomes
[This message has been edited by LOGO (edited February 14, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by LOGO (edited February 14, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Logo
Amazingly we have already included most of your points on a web page posting. There will indeed be a factor for being the person controlling the territory, non task force scouting can be gained from air/space recon. We also count the possibility of applying spie actions to tactical battles. I believe harli posted a initial very land oriented post, hopefully a full scout model will be viewable on a web page soon.
As to the advantage system. The percentages are the chance of gaining an advantage. If the chance to successfully scout the opposition is 30%, then 15% and below would give a basic advantage while 3% would give a major advantage. These advantages are not necessarily battle winners but they can influence the battle. Things like skewing terrain selection etc will effect the battles and the chances of a small ambush on the opposition will not greatly effect a battle but it will effect the enemies scouts more than ordinarily. The ability to more rapidly deploy a number of units will possibly allow a side to get more troops ready for battle in the first couple of maneuver phases. These will not effect the battle that greatly but can allow for more detailed battle resolution . (The possibility of allowing a fairly accurate newspaper style reporting of the broad battle is also available for those that want it.)
Note: it is envisaged that for many battles not in the modern period low scouting values will mean that the battles will have a lot of scouting and maneuvering preceeding the combat itself. The combat will necessarily be at short/melee range which will lead to high losses and the battle probably concluding within a day of combat being joined. So a battle in the "olden days" really translates to a short campaign inside a 10000 sq km area culminating in a fairly decisive battle.
In modern battles the combat ranges increase and the effects are reduced so the combat itself may indeed last for numerous days or weeks. When combined with high scout values the modern battle will have a much shorter period of scouting and maneuvering therefore generally fitting a more modern battle profile. This also leads to any scout gained advantage being less important as the effects of any advantage are really limited to the first few rounds of combat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Part 1 - The scouting model has now been posted to - http://www.usq.edu.au/users/krenske...iv/scouting.htm
The formula used at present are generally land-combat oriented. The hope is that this can be used for demo 5, and as it is unlikely there will be much besides land combat in it, this should not be a drawback.
Harli would like to know which formula should be used for the total scout strength. I would like to put forward a preference for the square root formula based on its simplicity.
I am content to update the page with changes that are suggested and I can keep a history of old pages.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Mark,
The problem with showing definite examples of scouting in ancient battels is that for the most part the historical record only looks at the climactic battle itself. Generally the lead up to a battle is historically ignored.
The scout phase involves those troops that range ahead of the main force, normally only a small fraction of the entire force. If a force is outcouted the army could be forced to fight at a disadvantage. Quite often in ancient and medieval periods this lead to one side or the other withdrawing during what we call the maneuvering/deployment phases.
There are though some battles where documentation regarding the maneuvering and the scouting does exist, generally it is only recorded when it goes horribly wrong for one side. These reports then tend to be of battles where one side is well advantaged. I will describe some below.
- Ramases vs the hittites. Although the egyptians were advancing with a number of light scouting forces ahead of its main force they were deceived by the hittite scouts. The hittite scouts not only deceived the opposition but also allowed their forces to fully deploy before the opposition had found them. The result almost resulted in the destruction of the egyptians. Only great leadership saved the day.
- Battle of Agincourt - The english army of small size did have a number of small scouting cavalry groups and some information from the people. The french army relied mainly on the reports from the countryside. this allowed the english to consistantly withdraw ahead of the french until they ran so short on supplies they had to fight. The english used there scouting supperiority to choose terrain to their liking. During deployment they were also able to deploy their much smaller force faster than the opposition. The result was a battle where the british were in favourable terrain and were presented with the enemy in piecemeal fashion.
-Various mongol battles. Throughout their expansion the mongols were served by large numbers of light cavalry scouts. This allowed then almost always to outscout there opposition who at the time relied mainly on reports from the local populace or on reports from other forces already engaged. This scouting ability gave their forces advantages in combat on a regular basis. Their fluid non territorial strategic style also allowed them to refuse combat when they had no advantage. (There are several reports of encounters where the mongols and opposition were arranged ready for battle, and the mongols outnumbered their enemies, but the mongols still withdrew because they did not have any major advantage. They then fought a new battle weeks later after breaking away and managing to gain an advantage. Some of these withdrawals and continued attempts to gain advantage covered 250 Km or more.) So most reports of mongol battles are generally reports of battles on favourable terrain or partial ambushes or evasion. It was only when they ran into mamluke cavalry armies where they could not withdraw at will, that the mongols suffered heavy defeats.
There were many battles where the scouting had no major effect, as such it was never reported or recorded. In the system put forward a similar effect will be seen, most of the time there will be no big effect from the scouting, but occasionally there will be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
At present we only have the scouting section up, so I will limit my example to that section.
Once 2 task forces meet we start a battle. The battle starts with a number of scouting phases that simulate the two sides trying to find each other and to determine their intentions etc. Both sides continue attempting to scout the opposition until they succeed at which point they begin to deploy vs the opposition. It is probable that one side will find the other first and therefore begin deploying first.
We determine if a force has scouted the oposition through a simple % based test. If the test is passed the side begins to deploy, If the test is very successful (<50% of target) then the side also gains a scouting advantage. If extremely successful (<10% of target) the side gains a major advantage.
We determine the target number using the following formula :- target number = total scout strength * generalship
Total scout strength = sqrt (Sum of element scout strengths + external scouting factors + #of elements + (# opposition elements / 2))
Element Scout strength = ((Exp + Tech feature + Comm tech) x (Mob - fortification benefit - terrain mod)) + hits
Example 1 - Mongol Horde -
6 x 7000 man units with 12 scouting elements and 84 elements in total vs a infantry army with 16 x 5000 man units with 160 elements.
The scouting elements are skilled and veteran they have no special technological equipment but they do use some special communication techniques that give them a +1 improvement. They also have Mob = 12 there are no fortifications but the terrain includes some marshes and hills giving a -2 mobility modifier, the elements have 500 men. The element scouting strength = ((7 + 0 + 1) x (12 - 0 - 2)) + 5 = 85
So the total scout strength is sqrt(85 x 12 + 84 + (160 / 2)) = 34
Assuming the general commanding is average (highly doubtful for mongols) 34 will be the target number. An advantage will be gained if the test beats 17 and a major advantage if the test beats 3.
Once the TF passes its scout test it then begins deploying and maneuvering for combat.
Tomorrow I will try to explain the whole system as best I can and the interplays between phases, unless Harli manages to before I can get to it.
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 17, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Small Unit conflicts (only one unit ~ 5000men) are more likely to begin while one side is not yet fully deployed. In this situation it is only when the outmaneuvered side is unwilling to withdraw that a fight will actually occur. As the armies grow in size there will be a general increase in the number of deployed units so surprises are reduced.
One thing I am recomending is to move both the land ownership and any spy factors used as external scouting factors outside of the SQRT part of the formula for total scout strength. This will increase the ability of small home armies to deploy for combat vs invaders on their own soil. (I think I meant this all along but I just rammed it into the formula as is.) This should lead to more advantages for defending forces etc.
Some point later today I will describe the whole system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Basic description of a battle.
My running example will be a napoleonic era force of 6 infantry, 2 cavalry and 3 artillery units for the french and 9 infantry, 1 cav and 2 artillery for the austrians.
Phase 1. Both sides cycle through the scouting phase until they pass their test.
Phase 2. Maneuvering. Once a side has passed its scouting test it begins to maneuver and deploy its troops vs the opposition. This is done as a further set of phases with leadership and command tests. In any one of these phases the battle could actually start. Units that are not yet deployed ready for combat have some negative modifiers apply to them. There is also the chance of light unit actions occurring between skirmishing forces.
Phase 3 Combat. Once a side is fully deployed and positioned for combat it can begin the combat. Alternatively the combat may begin earlier because of unintended clashes during maneuvering. At this point the front line units are matched vs opposition units on a 1-1 basis, if there are additional ones left over they will stack up until 2-1 is reached. If greater than 2-1 stacking occurs the outnumbered side must deploy reserve or support units to the front line. (This stacking reflects the ability of mass forces to overrun, infiltrate and flank the enemy. The stacking will be effected by the unit dispersion rating, some units will just have a larger frontage due to size and tactical doctrine.) Once the units are all matched, a round of combat is resolved. After the combat resolution various morale tests are made and some units may retreat from the front line. The combat phase repeats until one side withdraws voluntarily or involuntarily.
Phase 4. Withdrawal. A side may choose to withdraw after any maneuver or combat phase. The withdrawing forces units in reserve immeadiately retreat. The units in support make a mobility test to see if they manage to break from combat. The units in the front line make a opposed mobility test to break from combat. The opposition becomes the pursuer, the pursuer makes opposed mobility tests to remain in contact. Only organised units with firm morale may pursuit.
Now for a example. (I will not actually list every number and factor I will only give a overview.) The 2 armies begin scouting against each other. The square being a austrian possesion gives a enough benefit that the austrians out scout the french and begin deploying for battle (The austrians did gain a advantage - the terrain will skew towards their preference - close terrain, for the infantry). The french take 2 more scouting cycles to properly scout the austrian forces. In the mean time the austrians have managed to maneuver 3 units against the french. Both sides are now deploying units. In the 1st and 2nd french maneuvering phase a skirmishing action is fought between french light cavalry and some austrian cavalry. By the end of the austrians 7th maneuver phase they have managed to deploy all but 1 infantry unit, the french have deployed all but 1 artillery unit. At this point one of the tests forces the combat to start for real.
The 1st combat round is fairly inconclusive with some casualties to both sides. After the combat resolution both sides test to deploy their last unit. The french succeed, the austrians fail. A second combat round is fought and a number of austrian infantry units morale fails. The austrians stubbornly decide to remain and their last infantry shows up. The third combat round ends with more than half of the austrian units retiring and 2 french infantry retiring. The austrians decide to withdraw (The total losses are now more than the AI can sustain according to some arcane formula.). The 2 french cavalry who have been in reserve pursuit, along with 2 infantry units still with high morale. The austrians manage to seperate all their units except for 2 infantry and the artillery. A pursuit combat round is fought between just the 7 units, during which the 2 french infantry lose enough morale to no longer pursuit. The austrians also suffer a large number of losses and the artillery is captured. In the next withdrawal phase the 2 austrian infantry succeed in seperating from combat, and the battle concludes.
The timescales for the different phases is not set in concrete. They do lend themselves to being 1 day equivalents for the scouting and maneuvering and 1/3rd days for the combat. If we can set a definite scale then we could actually determine the length of time taken for the battle in its total, including the scouting and maneuvering. The Tf's would then have used up however many strategic movement "ticks" the battle time equates too.
Remember this is only a wordy overview the maneuver, combat and withdrawal models are still to be fully detailed. Hopefully soon.
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 17, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlikwin
|
|
In response to the rebuild idea, historically speaking it is easier to rebuild a division rather than just make one up from scratch. The part of the divsion left is often the REFM bit who do the clerical work which is vital to rebuilding the divsion and since they are in place and already know how the systrem works it is easier to rebuild it... WE could change it to make it cost more though, as appropriate..
-Harli
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Mark,
I agree on the Jump in effectiveness of comms. It should indeed be gradual can I suggest a comms bonus of N being reduced by dispersion D. According to a formula like N - D.
I will update the page with a change to that area soon.
As to having a lower rebuild cost. I agree with Harli, A unit or combat element is able to rebuild cheaper, training and experience wise, if there is a cadre left to build onto. It is certainly cheaper than starting from scratch. There is a real incentive in pulling units out of combat if it is cheaper to do than rebuying from scratch. This is historical and it should be able to be handled within the TF structure. Damaged units can be pulled back to reserve, where they are repaired and resupplied and then sent back to the front line. Hopefully the micro management can be handled by TF AI.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
The problem I see with making a unit cheaper to rebuild vs. just building a new unit is this: Yes it is appropriate to just rebuild a unit for much less money. But we must remember that a "unit" is 5,000 men and the only realistic percentage that we can rebuild on (just considering 1 unit) is something like 2-5%. Now that's just one unit. Considering the fact that Clash armies will be multiple units, the percentage should probably be less than 1% most of the time, except for those rare cases where you only have 1 unit in the army.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Toubabo_Koomi
The rebuilding cost is only at the element level in the unit model. An element is a small ~500 man combat element. It is envisaged that the rate and handling of element rebuilding be a completely automated system.
Assume that a infantry division has just been smacked about pretty badly and it has completely lost 5 infantry elements and has another down to half strength. Now while the unit remains in the front line only the damaged element can be repaired. So at most this will only ever top up the 1 damaged element of each type in the unit. If the Ai chooses to move the element to reserve then it can rebuild 1 element per period of time (approx 3 days). If the TF is not engaged in combat and the unit is in reserve it could rebuild 2 elements per period. I would like to assume that there will be some sort of pool of military replacements that can be used for these rebuilds along with a supply pool.
If a Unit is ever completely destroyed a proportion of the units manpower is assumed to join the replacement pool and the unit must be repurchased from scratch. The main point of the rebuild stats and the standing values is to properly simulate the cycling of units in combat. It will also tend to average the damage across a task force so that whole units will not be wiped out until a large psrt of the TF is reduced.
Hopefully the system will be more understandable after the Assault/battle and recovery phases sections are available.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-2000 07:23
, you can do like civ. My personal preference is a railroad transport pool, but it's certainly up for debate.
|